Dallas And Houston Vs. The World

[VelvetJ]

So Arch, what is your question exactly? How can we change the minds of the people holding the money in this city? If so, then I don't know. IMO, in the minds of some, Houston is simply a place to make money. Nothing more and nothing less. So if that is the mindset of some with money, then I suppose they are wondering why even consider a project with any sort of architectural significance in a place where making money is it's modus operandi.

[arche_757]

Im not even sure anymore -

I didnt really ever pose a question, it was a rant, or critique if you will. From my view point, which is apparently offensive to some. Yet those people are oblivious to current architectural projects happening around the world or they just dont care that Houston's recent modern architecture (aside from the Moneo, and some residential projects here and there) are if anything not cutting edge or even provocative. Thats fine that some chose to see through it. I for one cant see past it.

While Im not an architect, with only a couple of semesters left I feel qualified to downplay the recent architectural works that have happend in this town. Many on this board are more concerned with just getting buildings started even if they look bad ie Orion, thats fine, I realize that Houston needs some bad architecture especially if it means neighborhood gentri(cough...cough) revitilazation, but many of the projects under work here are less than par (in my opinion) to other projects of a similar stature in other cities.

One example is the new Hobby Center (which isnt really new) - compared to the Disney Concert Hall in LA - Gehry building (although I think he is a tad to forceful with his work), it is nothing. Cesar Pelli's new performing arts center in Miami is far more impressive than is Sterns Hobby Center. Sure that particular building couldnt fit in the space of the Hobby Center. But... I think Stern is a good choice for academic buildings and a bad one for civic buildings. As stated earlier atleast Dallas gets Foster and OMA! Exclamation point!

Another is the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, on Allen Parkway - I dont exactly like it, but I dont hate it either, it was much more impressive under construction than it is finished (which is a bad thing), why didnt the board chose a local architect, namely Lake/Flato to design a building that they wanted to have a sense of place - which it doesnt!

Reliant Stadium - which while a nice stadium and decent design is a bad multi-purpose center due to terrible acoustics. The problem with this building is the location alone! Why not downtown, after paying that much what is another $100 million? Atleast we could see the Texans lose from a nice part of town.

Most of the Medical Center buildings constructed in the last decade. Look towards Philly, Boston, and other states for innovative bio-medical buildings, but not Houston which touts itself as a leader in the field. There arent any comprehensive design guidlines set forth by the powers that run the Med Center for a high level of design in building any new towers. Atleast there are 3 decent more modern buildings under construction or recently finished there - UT Student Commons, old Nabisco Factory, and the new UT? building just south of the Shriners Hospital.

Uptown - Mercer, Mark, Dominion - all ugly highrises compared to what Miami, Chicago and even a few proposed buildings in Minneapolis are doing. The saving grace are the Ziegler Cooper highrises in Uptown Park.

Museum District - what district. You must be refering to Binz east of Montrose or perhaps the MFAH.

I could go on, but there is another list with older buildings and perhaps a few new ones that deserve to be mentioned that are our only saving graces these days. I just hope developers dont take design for granted, and place a higher importance on established architects or atleast ones willing to challenge the oh so low status que here in Houston.

Edited October 17, 2005 by arche_757

[MidtownCoog]

I do agree on the Fed building.

What an eyesore. If you are going to block a view of downtown, at least show some class.

This building reminds me of a lego set.

[VelvetJ]

I follow you arch 757 and I agree with you. I actually had a extremely similar rant here not long ago about recent buildings going up in the city, but I'm not sure if anyone noticed. Yes, I've too often seen what's been going up in other cities and wondered what is going on here. Have you seen the new Symphony Hall that is going up in Atlanta. It blows our "new" Hobby Center out of the water. I even love the new one going up in Dallas because it is so different and "wild".

I am not trying to change the subject arch 757, but again, IMO it boils down to what I said earlier about a "Conservative Element" that has taken over this city, and how it seems to be affecting everything right down to building design. I'm not blind to the progress the city is making, (albeit literally years after our counter-parts), but I'm not going to ignore things that I think are hindering the city's progress because a few think I'm insecure. I want Houston to have a little more edge to make it more dynamic. So enough of defending why Houston shouldn't have more rail, enough of defending why we shouldn't have more dramatic architectural designs, enough of defending why there shouldn't be more urban designs in midtown, enough of defending why so many of our freeways look the way they do. We've got to stop somehow finding defenses for things that could have been, and could be done better in this city.

The tallest building going up in Houston right now is a big ol' bland box in the medical center. In the meantime, I see buildings going up in Atlanta and wonder how is it that designers and those having buildings built there seem to have soooooo much more money than those in Houston to where they can build such sparking buildings? I'm jealous:

Below is their new Symphony Center. If given the choice in design, I would choose it over our Hobby Center design.

And these are just 3 projects that are either under construction or about to break ground. There are many more, including the nearly completed Sympony Tower in Midtown with it's dramatic Fins.

Again, I just want Houston to step it up a bit in every way, including architecture.

[MidtownCoog]

Have you seen the new Symphony Hall

And herein lays the inherent problem with judging a book (building) by its cover (outside).

The Exxon building is a prime example. Everyone bemoans how it looks without even stepping foot inside and seeing how the building functions.

Not saying all ground-breaking designs are not functional, but much of the ornamental nature of these designs are just for looks.

Below is their new Symphony Center. If given the choice in design, I would choose it over our Hobby Center design.

So the building has an arch on top. His signature arch. How about the inside?

Symphony Centers don't just get by on thier good looks, they need top notch acoustics as well.

[VelvetJ]

So midtowncoog, why not just build something that looks great and function on the inside as well? You don't think I understand the importance of acoustics in a symphany hall? That isn't even the issue here. I digress.

*note*- Again, coming up with defenses on things where there shouldn't be any.

You mentioned a lot of those ornamentals are just for looks...... you d*mn skippy. Midtowncoog, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you see folks, this is what I'm talking about. Too many in Houston don't GET IT! We are the 4th largest city in this country, and we don't act like it. People here have said I sound like I'm in high school, but I think that is what it is going to take for our citizens to get the BASIC ideas about certain things. My goodness!

I'm sorry, now I'M starting to rant. I will end it here.

Edited October 18, 2005 by VelvetJ

[Gary]

What I don't understand is why know one see's the cycle that cities go through. Maybe Houston has not been the most dynamic kid on the block over the last 10 or 15 years, so what.

Do we forget all of the amazing projects this city has acomplished over the years?

I wonder if cities like Atlanta, Dallas and LA were having these discussions while Houston was setting the country on fire back in the 70's and 80's?

Speaking of which, I just got back from Atlanta and could come up with many reasons why I think Houston blows it's doors. So some of this is opinion not fact.

I know Houston has some shortcomings right now, but we'll be back in the mix eventually. This city is to big and to dynamic not to.

[MidtownCoog]

If decorative crowns and fancy facades float your boat, then more power to you.

Houston is not dead.

[RedScare]

These cycles are generally dictated by economics. In the 70s and early 80s, Houston was flush with cash, and everything pointed up. The buildings and architecture reflected that. The oil bust deflated that optimism, and even with current oil prices, Houston remembers those days. Downtown has 20 percent vacancy, so you aren't going to see a lot of new skyscrapers going up, no matter what developers in other cities are doing.

The current economic climate does not give developers and banks the confidence needed to spring for $200 million buildings. The right climate will return, but until then, you will see only midrise construction, or some high residential, since there is not a glut of that...yet.

All of the crying for architecturally significant construction is understandable, but the final say on the matter is the economics of building in the first place. If the economics are not there, it doesn't get built. Just look at how long it has taken downtown Dallas to fill all of the empty buildings created from its last downturn, and they are not out of the woods, yet.

This is not a sign of Houston developers losing their will. It is a sign that the numbers do not justify the investment. If and when the numbers return, you will see the cranes on the skyline. And we can only hope that the architects are up to the task of adding to the skyline in a meaningful way.

[VelvetJ]

(in a sweet calm voice) I am not concerned about whether buildings are going up or not in Houston. That is not my issue, so there is no need to explain why other cities have more buildings going up than Houston. I couldn't care less that Atlanta has more buildings going up than Houston at this time. My thing in this particular thread is the quality and design of the things that ARE going up in Houston.

I will accept that Dallas, Atlanta, San Diego, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Miami, etc., all have stronger economy's than Houston right now and that is why the architectural designs of the new structures in those places are superior to those in Houston, and has been for some years now. I suppose because of our economy we shouldn't expect that The Mercer, The Mark, The Treasury on Allen Parkway, Toyota Center, Reliant Stadium, The building going up in the Medical Center (which by the way will be the tallest buiilding in the Medical Center), the recent announcements in the Medical Center, the Beck Musueum building, The Hobby Center, the new condo that's going up off of Woodway near the Houstonian, etc., couldn't have been done any better in terms of design. How could I even consider Houston having a building built beyond a mediocre standard since the oil bust of the 80's? I mean, thank goodness the new condo proposed on Upper Kirby, and the Enron II buildings were all designed in the late 70's and early 80's during the oil boom and was just put on hold to be built in current times, otherwise we wouldn't have anything worth looking at today;). I also certainly hope our economy picks up by the time the intermodal transit facility comes around because otherwise, I think we will be looking at a gigantic beige box with a couple of windows and some doors. And if we are lucky, maybe a bean bag combination chicken processing company will open across from the front entrance of the transit hub so we can show the world how Houston is a place that supports free-enterprise, and to prove how much we are not like the rest of the world.

Guys I'm not asking that anyone spin gold out of straw in this city, but come on. Would they place the new treasury building in the heart of Manhattan? Would a design like the Mercer even be considered if it were known to be placed in the heart of Buckhead? If a new tallest were being built in the heart of Century City in L.A., do you think a simple tall off-white box would be chosen for the design in 2005?

This is my last post on this thread.

Edited October 19, 2005 by VelvetJ

[MidtownCoog]

I will accept that Dallas, Atlanta, San Diego, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Miami, etc., all have stronger economy's than Houston right now

Are you an architect, or an economist? Houston is not dead, and neither is the economy.

But I know you won't be happy until every building has an arch and a decorative crown, so when I have my own building, I'll make sure it has both, just for you.

[VelvetJ]

Are you an architect, or an economist? Houston is not dead, and neither is the economy.

But I know you won't be happy until every building has an arch and a decorative crown, so when I have my own building, I'll make sure it has both, just for you.

I know I said my last post was my last but I will just say this:

MidtownCoog, I actually was being sarcastic. And I never once said Houston is dead.

[MidtownCoog]

I know, I saw your smiley!

[The Great Hizzy!]

Come on, as soon as Velvet included "Reliant Stadium" in his lists of projects that "could have been done better", I knew there was at least a hint of sarcasm in the overall post. Reliant's considered the gold standard of new sports facilities. We may disagree on its architectural merit on it's own terms, but when viewed but the population overall, it's a smash.

Anyway, while I disagree as to the relative quality of designs here in Houston compared to many of its peers (I think they're pretty much in line when you get right down to it), I will agree that the relative quality of projects today don't seem to have the same impact that designs of the previous few decades had. In that, though, I think 'Coog is right in that most firms (commercial and otherwise) want a more conservative design, and they're the ones paying the bills.

I saw a handful of projects in LA and Seattle that I liked but most of them were pretty much standard fare, just as those in Dallas and San Diego were. It's in the eye of the beholder, however, and it's difficult to dictate "high style" to a populace that, overall, has a pretty varied view of "high style".

[arche_757]

To change the pace of the discussion - I think one thing other cities do well - one we wont argue with. Is they try to accomodate the pedestrian more than most of the projects here in Houston. Many of the new towers in downtown Seattle arent going to blow you away, but it is nice to note the acceptance of foot-traffic in there design.

On another note - Reliant Stadium - is a good stadium, just in a bad location. End of story.

[VelvetJ]

Ah what the heck, I lied.

IMO, Reliant FUNCTIONS very well. Probably the best in the NFL right now. But the actual exterior design of it is blah, IMO. Is it an attractive facility, yes, but there is nothing complicated about it at all. I think a lot of people were a little taken because it was so new and clean and the roof moved, but it really doesn't get any design awards from me.

Edited October 20, 2005 by VelvetJ

[MidtownCoog]

complicated about it at all

I think we've got your number now.

Maybe we could put a decorative loop-the-loop on top a la Evil Knievel?

Or how about a decorative crown in the shape of a Longhorn?

[VelvetJ]

When I typed that sentence I knew someone would take it and run, and within a matter of moments..........

IMO, the Hilton America's is "complicated" and you can have that. So Midtown, you do not have my number.

[MidtownCoog]

You won't like this from the Chicago Tribune:

Houston has a great school of architecture. Chicago has great architecture.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...ack=1&cset=true

[arche_757]

Yeah just read that - thats what Im talking about.

But of course the Tribune can write whatever they want - they arent architects, or even architecturaly literate - though they would say they are since they live in Chicago.

[MidtownCoog]

It's getting "stupider" by the minute:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ts/12956164.htm

When the Super Bowl was there (Houston) a couple of years ago, a carload of us got lost on the enormous highway loop around the city because we were aiming toward the wrong cluster of tall buildings. That can't happen in a city like Chicago.

A real city has one skyline, one center, one pulse. Chicago is a city. Houston, for all its many charms, is a metroplex. That's another word for sprawl with a mayor.

[kjb434]

Touchy, Touchy.

So we like our urban areas spread out.

They could have looked at a map. Houston isn't that hard to get around.

Also, since they're from Chicago, shouldn't they have been using the rail system.

[MidtownCoog]

Work a couple of weeks in London, and you'll appreciate things being spread out here. I am sure the same holds true for NYC.

It's Texas! We have elbow room here.

And I like it that way.

[2112]

...Come on, as soon as Velvet included "Reliant Stadium" in his lists of projects that "could have...

Funny, I had always thought he was a she. I stand corrected.

(carry on)

[arche_757]

Chicago seems to me to never have excepted the fact its a great town - and instead feels the need to "rub-it-in" the face of others. Chicago was lucky that there central city didnt "fall apart" like all other major US downtowns except New York and San Francisco. They have a great town, they focus on our bad spots - but give me a game at Minute Maid over US Cellular Field any day. I think they will be surprised.

They did get one thing right - both cities have fat people. Not because we are lazy - but because we love our food!!